: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 6/30/2013 11:05:30 PM, thett3 wrote:Your OP isn't a compelling argument at all. There are good arguments against capital punishment, saying that Europe doesnt do it isn't one of them.

I didn't see any arguments. He just asked why we still do it. Which is a sensible question if we're the last ones doing it.

Personally, I think it's only because we're obsessed with a sorta of "cowboy persona". Americans are romantics and it gets into everything we do. Which is usually something I love. But we just had to pick the worst way to do it.

I think the issue was the usage of the word 'still', which perhaps implies a belief that such practices are archaic and old fashioned. He could have been a little more generous in his interpretation though.

You lie. You made a VERY poor argument - namely "all the other kids are jumping off the bridge I should too". And yes, all the Menshevicks in Europe decided to stop punishing criminals and to coddle them instead. It's stupid. Put a bullet in their head and bill the family for the cost of it.

At 7/1/2013 4:39:55 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:You lie. You made a VERY poor argument - namely "all the other kids are jumping off the bridge I should too". And yes, all the Menshevicks in Europe decided to stop punishing criminals and to coddle them instead. It's stupid. Put a bullet in their head and bill the family for the cost of it.

Lol. So you think revenge and making the family pay are justified actions of the State?

At 7/1/2013 4:39:29 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:I think the issue was the usage of the word 'still', which perhaps implies a belief that such practices are archaic and old fashioned. He could have been a little more generous in his interpretation though.

At 7/1/2013 4:39:29 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:I think the issue was the usage of the word 'still', which perhaps implies a belief that such practices are archaic and old fashioned. He could have been a little more generous in his interpretation though.

Well they are.

Well you can hardly expect to get a reasonable response out of a pro-DP person with that attitude can you?

"Lol. So you think revenge and making the family pay are justified actions of the State?"

I think that a critical element of a just legal system is proportionality. The punishment should fit the crime. The victim - or in the case of a murder, the victim's heirs - should have the right to exact justice OR settle for restitution.

But let me guess... you think the rights of the creep who rapes someone are more important than the rights of their victim, yah?

At 7/1/2013 5:19:41 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:"Lol. So you think revenge and making the family pay are justified actions of the State?"

I think that a critical element of a just legal system is proportionality. The punishment should fit the crime. The victim - or in the case of a murder, the victim's heirs - should have the right to exact justice OR settle for restitution.

But let me guess... you think the rights of the creep who rapes someone are more important than the rights of their victim, yah?

So you think justice should be an eye for an eye? I think that the crime can't be reversed by committing the same crime against the criminal. I also don't think that the State should have such powers. Also, the "creep" might turn out to be innocent, but by that time, they're dead.

Sure, you can punish an innocent person with death. You can also punish them with any other form of punishment. Do you think sitting in a cage and getting raped by some dude named Bubba for 10 years is really that preferable to a bullet in the head? Of course every step should be taken to ensure that the innocent are not convicted; and luckily very few are because of the way the legal system is structured (the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard of proof).

Actually, a crime can best be 'reversed' through restitution. The problem with a crime (excluding victimless crimes like drug use, which shouldn't be crimes at all) is that a victim was hurt. So why not make the criminal pay financial restitution to the victim? This doesn't undo what happened BUT it DOES benefit the person who was hurt. This should be the ENTIRE focus of the legal system but it is not.

Punishment for a crime is not a crime itself. The same action can be in one case a crime and in another not a crime. If you punch me in the head, that is a crime. if I punch you in the head in order to prevent you from doing that to me, that is not a crime and in fact a glorious act of self defense.

At 7/1/2013 5:32:30 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:Sure, you can punish an innocent person with death. You can also punish them with any other form of punishment. Do you think sitting in a cage and getting raped by some dude named Bubba for 10 years is really that preferable to a bullet in the head?

They shouldn't allow rape in prisons. Prison is reversible, and doesn't require the State to murder anybody.

Of course every step should be taken to ensure that the innocent are not convicted; and luckily very few are because of the way the legal system is structured (the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard of proof).

LOL, are you kidding?

Actually, a crime can best be 'reversed' through restitution.

Reparation can sort of treat the wound of the crime.

The problem with a crime (excluding victimless crimes like drug use, which shouldn't be crimes at all) is that a victim was hurt. So why not make the criminal pay financial restitution to the victim? This doesn't undo what happened BUT it DOES benefit the person who was hurt. This should be the ENTIRE focus of the legal system but it is not.

Well there you go. What about along with reparation, we have some rehabilitation, some protection and a bit of vindication.

I honestly think the near "ENTIRE" focus of the legal system should be prevention. There are some common stats that criminals hold, such as poor upbringing etc.

Punishment for a crime is not a crime itself. The same action can be in one case a crime and in another not a crime. If you punch me in the head, that is a crime. if I punch you in the head in order to prevent you from doing that to me, that is not a crime and in fact a glorious act of self defense.

I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

At 7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

You're saying that it should be available for someone who can't be kept in prison? We'll have to deal with that as it comes.

At 7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

You're saying that it should be available for someone who can't be kept in prison? We'll have to deal with that as it comes.

At 7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

You're saying that it should be available for someone who can't be kept in prison? We'll have to deal with that as it comes.

Why? Why not just put the proviso in the law now?

Because it would probably be a one off case, which can be properly considered at the time for the case it actually is.

At 7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

You're saying that it should be available for someone who can't be kept in prison? We'll have to deal with that as it comes.

Why? Why not just put the proviso in the law now?

Because it would probably be a one off case, which can be properly considered at the time for the case it actually is.

That's not how the law works. If you make it illegal in legislature the court has no recourse. If you instead stipulate that it can only apply in cases where the accused cannot reasonably be kept in custody then you can take the case on its merits. Unless you support retroactive legislation? I do only in very limited circumstances and sentencing constraints would definitely not be one of them. A person needs to know what their potential punishment for a given crime is.

At 7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

You're saying that it should be available for someone who can't be kept in prison? We'll have to deal with that as it comes.

Why? Why not just put the proviso in the law now?

Because it would probably be a one off case, which can be properly considered at the time for the case it actually is.

That's not how the law works. If you make it illegal in legislature the court has no recourse. If you instead stipulate that it can only apply in cases where the accused cannot reasonably be kept in custody then you can take the case on its merits. Unless you support retroactive legislation? I do only in very limited circumstances and sentencing constraints would definitely not be one of them. A person needs to know what their potential punishment for a given crime is.

I think the State should do a better job of keeping them in prison. If they can escape prison, extra maximum security, then they can escape death row. Hell, they could probably fake their own death via "lethal injection" and then pretend to be dead while committing further crimes.